tv Lectures in History Natural Rights the Constitution CSPAN December 16, 2017 8:00pm-9:16pm EST
national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. to join the conversation, like a son facebook at c-span history. -- like us on facebook. next, a professor teaches a class on intellectual ideas such , underpinninghts the american founding, and the constitution. makes a righthat inherent, and the relationship between individuals and government. his class is about 70 minutes. >> ok. let's get started. grounds that we have covered so far. our topic is american constitutionalism.
our goal by the end of the semester is to be able to think more clearly and more deeply about some of the fundamental and pressing political issues of our time. religious freedom, the proper relationship between church and state, the philosophical and historical arguments for religious freedom. arguments against religious freedom, arguments that would limit religious freedom. in a few weeks, we will get to first amendment questions. what does the free exercise clause of the first amendment prohibits and allow? a fan of the first some better -- semester, we will discuss what is harmful to a liberal democracy. that is what we are doing. last week, we talked about christianity, and what christianity does to politics. there was a, command to give to caesar what is caesar and give to god what is god.
meyer given was that this fundamentally alters and radically disturbs the classical conception of politics. it destroys the idea that political authority directly comes from god. that is a presumption of classical politics. ok. christianity introduces all sorts of fundamental questions. relationship between religious and political authority, the pope and the emperor, religious rulers and secular rulers? the two swords become too. what are the grounds for political authority question mark of divine authority is political of 30, then how do we just -- justify it? how do we justify the rule of some men over other men. one response, and this is what we started to do last week.
they would try to reinvent religious authority. law.ee this in sharia we didn't talk about this. we see this in the argument for the kings. you may know this from some of your history classes. they emerge in europe. response is to recognize the separate authorities, and see how they are complementary. this is what we did last class. they recognize legitimate political authority, and recognized religious authority. they think religious authority can be aided by political authorities. this is a gusto's argument for the mild use of force. would course political authority, which can be useful to advance a true religion. we saw these -- this in different ways. a good, in terms of summary? ok. they also introduce the natural law.
a product of what christianity does to classical policy. argument, and you can see people are interested in this, thinkers like aristotle or cicero. there's a natural law accessible to human reason. it can ground or at least be part of the grounds for political authority. we should talk a little bit about -- and this is where we left off last time -- what is the natural law? then, we have to understand the relationship between the natural and the american experiment in constitutional government, ok?some classical -- some classic examples of natural law, this is st. paul in a letter to the romans, 214. he is recognizing this idea of natural law. when the gentiles do not have -- sorry, when the gentiles but do
not have the law, but do things instinctive of the law, there are lots of themselves. they show the works of law written in their hearts. weren'to don't, who given, don't have, or were not given god's law, still can know law through their natural reasoning. paul is recognizing the national law here. -- the natural law here. the classic example is martin luther king's letter from birmingham jail. i mention this last class. he wrote this on scraps of papers in jail. he says that she is asked, how can you justify breaking the laws? siddons, and they're not following the positive law, and how can you justify that? martin luther king says "the answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.
i have to have to -- obey just laws. one has a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws, and to disobey unjust laws. all.whatock, no law at is the difference between the two? how can you tell? a just law is man-made code that squares with the moral law or law of god. an unjust code is out of harmony with moral law. an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. segregation is wrong because it is against natural law. it might be product of the positive law, in the sense that it was made, but it's not just consistent with the underlying natural law." its idea of natural law, involves the idea that there is right and wrong by nature. what, convention
or the things we make. there are certain things that are morally right and wrong, not because we recognize the right and wrong -- we say the right and wrong -- but because they are right and wrong. that's what martin luther king is getting at. i made reference to the first book of the republic. this is the debate between this,es in the first of his justice by nature or if integer of the stronger? ok. questions on that, and this idea of natural law? lots of people think it's very mysterious. to me, there are just things that are right and wrong not because we say there are. slavery, or murder, or harming children. if a law says it's ok to harm your children, that law would be problematic. it's wrong for parents to harm
their children. usually. [laughter] all right. here is what we are going to do for the rest of class. i will try to make an argument that the founders were natural law makers of a sort. what we are going to try to do is figure out the relationship between natural rights and law, as the founders understood it. our task is to understand what the founders thought. that's only a precursor to asking another question: is there a philosophy adherence with being persuasive? what is their understanding of natural law and rights? for doing that because religious liberty is a part of natural rights. to understand the rights of religious liberty, underlying understandave to natural rights, political
philosophy nor -- more generally. that means understanding the relationship between natural law and natural rights. our goal today is to get through political philosophy. next class, we'll talk about specific arguments for natural rights to religious liberties. ok? ok. again, stop me if you have questions, or want me to slow down. just let me know. ok. principleshree basic or articles of the founders national -- natural rights, note -- known as the social compact. . john law has secretary's on government, it's sort of the intellectual architecture that the founders borrow from or build upon. articles three basic that we are going to talk about today. equality,one is human and we will spend a while talking about this.
government as instituted -- is instituted by consent. some rights are inalienable. government is instituted by consent, to protect rights. some rights are inalienable. those are the three main points of the founders compact theory. if you can understand those, you can understand the founders basic political philosophy. , and this brings us to the declaration of independence, which i ask you to read. very familiar to us. we will recite this at the beginning of the football game on saturday. " we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." equality is the foundation of the foundation of american political thinking. it brings up the office question
-- obvious question, what do they mean by equality? think? you what have you been taught, or what do you think? >> the quality is dignity. >> the equality and dignity, values of human life, and what else? >> historically, the quality is opportunity, immigrants coming to the country are given the opportunity to advance in society, where we didn't have this in other countries. >> equality is opportunity. >> for the found -- founders, it's in the that every man, woman, child is born with natural, inalienable rights. >> equality and rights. what about the manifest problems of slavery? we don't talk much about this, but a little bit, right? how can you believe in equality and own slaves?
how was this handled in your high school classes? to talk about this in high school? -- do you talk about this in school? i have an idea for a theme. i think would be interesting to go through high school textbook and see how equality is taught in high school textbooks in the declaration of independence come and see if it changes over time. it can change by region. i don't know the answer, but i think it would be interesting. what were you taught? old whiteese were hypocritical men, who wrote equalities and owned slaves, and it didn't deal with the quality of race or gender. because of slaveowning men, they didn't believe in equality, or only for white men? yes. that is what you are -- were taught? that's surprising. that's a small minority. >> i think it went along the generallyhe founders
would have liked to abolish slavery. class, a whole another the american political thought the minor and constitutional studies, where we talk about this. here's my basic argument of how to address this. if you want to know what founders -- founders thought about equality, you should read what they wrote. that's where you start at least. look at what they did, but also what they said. conclusion to that, and i will just speak about jefferson, is that what you see is hypocrisy. jefferson did one thing, but he believed something else. he articulates these philosophical principles. assert this i will here. there's not enough time. he believed in human equality, and the quality of the slaves, they equality of the white man and black man. he didn't live up to that in his practice.
scholars debate that of course, right? an implication -- if i'm right, and implication of that could rightfully charge jefferson of hypocrisy. now, there might be some defenders who would say, you didn't do anything. others say he should have done more. that's also an interesting question. i believe if you read jefferson and other founders, hamilton for , if you have the founders active in the new york society, to try to free slaves, then buy their freedom. if you read the founders, what they say, i think the evidence is that they believed in equality, whether they believed in it or not. that doesn't answer a question which is what do you mean by equality?
this is called the self-evident truth. we don't have to talk about it too much, but what else was there?other ideas? you know the story of jefferson's death? when he died? adamsson died with john on july 4, 1826. jefferson obviously rights the manger -- writes the main draft. adams was the founder most responsible for getting the colonists to move towards independence. you could argue that they are
the two most responsible for the declaration of independence, and they die on july 4, 1826, a poetic ring to it. there's a big party in philadelphia, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence, and folks right to jefferson -- wri te to jefferson and say, we want you to be part of this celebration. jefferson is about to die. back, andthis letter it should have had you read this, but i have a passage for you. june -- end ofn june 1826. i think this might be jefferson's best statement of his own understanding of the declaration of independence. "i i should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met
and exchanged their congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worries, -- were these, who joined us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for a country, -- i believe it will be to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally tall all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition has persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. "? here's the most important part -- self-government. --s has artie been laid open already been laid open. a powerful truth that mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor are they ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of god. mankind has not been born with saddles on their back.
" what does that mean? jefferson's teaching about what a quality in the declaration of independence. -equality. >> he's referring how -- to how people looked at the bible to justify slavery, saying white men were meant to look at this -- >> the question is referring to the bible, biblical arguments for slavery. he has a line against monkish ignorance. jefferson was not friendly to catholics. he didn't like those sorts of religious arguments. let me put it this way, horses are not born with saddles on their back. mean?oes that what does it mean to put a saddle on and ride the horse?
i assume some of you know this. this is how you people used to get around -- >> animals don't have the same level of reason. >> they are animals. draw it out. >> they don't have our level of reason, the same rights that we do, therefore it's ok for us to put that on -- saddles on their back so we can break and ride and owned them. >> no man treat -- may treat another man like an animal or horse. there is a distinction among the species that is nature, right?who distinguishes animals from men? that's in nature, right? some people who believe in animal rights -- i don't know if you take plastic classes here at notre dame -- there's lots of animal rights discussions and
philosophy departments. some people who advocate for animal rights saying that people who fail to recognize animal-rights our species just. that is, they think there are distinctions among the species. jefferson would say yes. there's a natural distinction among the species that distinguishes men from animals, which is why he can ride a horse, break a worse. you don't have to pay a horse, negotiate with a horse for $15 an hour. horses are lobbying for minimum rate -- wage. , is's the nature jefferson's argument. there are no such similar distinctions established by nature among human beings. to get out the same point in a different way, all bees are not created equal. what, -- they are,
what, by nature? queen bees --who makes the queen bee the queen bee? there are not elections. bees don't vote. [laughter] >> there are clean and worker bees by nature. some of you have heard this before; the worker bees of the world don't unite, right?nature established there's rules. there are no kings or queens by nature. that's jefferson's argument. we can present this way. all -- we can phrase it this way. all human beings, individuals have the right of self minyan by nature. that's a natural liberty to govern themselves. .hat includes natural rights equality means equality in our natural rights. that's how the founders talked bundle of liberty we rightly possess by nature.
again, whether jefferson acted on these principles, they clearly failed. our task in this is to try to understand the principles. that?ons on go ahead. >> it's problematic to me to say he had these ideals, and that was -- he had this idea of rights and self dominion documents had, and he genuinely believed those, then had so great an heir as -- so great and air to keep and treat them as slaves. >> how could the author of the declaration of independence have slaves? i think it's a fair question. >> it's one thing to say lying is bad than mess up and like, but only human beings is completely different.
, i'm notno, it's, it's , becausefferson fan it's deeply morally problematic. you'd have to look at the context on how difficult it was or wasn't to free slaves. i don't think that excuses him. -- here's the contrast. washington also owned slaves. but, washington freed all his died, so he set up an endowment, so there would be a fun for the slaves to be able toa fund to be live off for the slaves. ,hen the slaves reached 18 maturity, they became freemen. washington's last act was to free his own slaves and help provide for them.
now, should washington of own slaves in the first place -- place?laves in the first well, not according to our founding principles, but at least at the end of life, he tried to correct that. we see nothing like that in jefferson. other thoughts? ok. we had this natural equality. natural equality is an equality in our natural liberty. we are all equally free, meaning we all equally possess a right of self dominion. that's the fundamental teaching of the declaration of independence. ? ok. ok -- ok? ok. any of you know who james wilson as? he's kind of an obscure founder,
but important at the time. signer of the declaration of independence, significant in pennsylvania politics, was a test signer of the constitution, was at the constitutional convention. he was one of the justices at the supreme court. he gave just as much as lectures between 1790-1792, lectures on law, fundamental principles on law. this is james wilson's account of our metro freedom -- national freedom, and natural -- national liberty. he says "nature has implanted in man the desire for his own happiness, and inspired him with many tender affections towards others, especially near relations of life. she has endowed him with intellectual and with active powers, she has furnished him with a natural impulse to exercise the powers of his own happiness, and the happiness of those for whom the entertains
such tender affections. the undeniable consequences, if this be true, that he has a right to exact -- exerts those powers for the company spent of in such a manner and upon such objects, as is his inclination and judgment shall direct area provided he does no injury to others. our human passion, and stinks for freedom, coupled with our in such a manner and upon such objects, assentimr faculties, ability to reason, but wilson looks at human nature. he is a look at man. freely, tois to live live as self-directed moral agents. a being like that is created to be free. to see how this corresponds the distinction between animals and human beings? we have faculties that animals do not. how do we know that?> by comparing ourselves with animals. if you look upon what man is, he see he is a free being, meant to
be free. passions, and stings, sentiments, faculties ground our freedom. it's our nature to be free. ok? this is just wilson's explanation of what jefferson was saying. freedom doesn't mean there is no right or wrong, and this is one of the reasons i wanted to show you the wilson quote. look at the bottom. "those who chose wisely will use this honorably, and those who are not will pursue meaner pursuits. others may indulge in what may he centered as fishes and dishonorable. there's human freedom, by nature , but there's also write and run by nature. some people will use their freedom well, and some will use their freedom poorly." some people think that they thought there was no right or wrong. that's clearly not what the
founders thought. recognize right and wrong by nature, and thought freedom was part of the natural law. look at the bottom here. the lock -- this immediately follows from the text you just read. "the laws of nature are the measure and the world that ascertains the extent of natural bertie." ,e have this natural liberty but those rights are part of the natural law, and limited by the natural law. ok? how can we better explain that? the have any of you seen hamilton video, or, the hamilton show? i'm a faculty member, so i can afford tickets. [laughter] >> this is hamilton.
hamilton writes a letter in 1775, a pamphlet. hamilton is writing against this tory loyalist arguing against the revolution, this guy named c barry, who writes under the farmer." "the hamilton writes this pamphlet, the farmer refuted. these were newspapers at the time. argued thattorrie all americans talk about natural that theret means -- is no right and wrong by nature. the founders, the americans are asserting freedom, not recognizing morality or law. amilton writes back, and says "you are the hobby and."
this is good and wise men have embraced to similar theories. dictated by god himself is obligation.all no human law of any validity are contrary to this. it is that some a question mark? king,s martin luther right? hamilton says there is a law of nature and then this is what follows. depends the law natural rights of mankind. " they understood that for rights to be part of law.
you can have a very good argument that the founders natural law the same as thomas aquinas'natural law? but they are both natural thinkers of being there is natural law by nature. human freedom is part of the natural law. that human freedom is what we call next rights. ok? good? questions, thoughts? ok. umm. here is the difficulty. there is a right and wrong by nature. , lots of human beings don't respect the nature
or natural rights of others. example might be helpful here. the natural right to property. why do you have the right to property? do you fish? what do you like fishing for? >> fish. but what type of fish? >> bass or whatever. so you go out and fish and you catch a bass and back to your dorm. what are our human? ed's and is out grilling all these fish for his classmates. so someone comes along and aidan
is preparing beverages for the rest of the class. by and you see the fish on the grill, what do you do? >> take it. prof. muoz: so they take the fish. andthey go over to lewis they say check out the fish. they have a party. [laughter] prof. muoz: have they done wrong? yeah. prof. muoz: aidan is like coming yeah. why are they your fish? >> because i caught them and i put in the work to get that good. they didn't do anything to retrieve them. prof. muoz: so the fish are in .he lake, you bring them back -- it i took the eckert
took the effort into stealing them. prof. muoz: what is the difference? i did the same things you did, so you only official until i own the fish and now i on the fish and by eight the. fish. i ate the >> i guess it's just -- they are mine. prof. muoz: why are they yours? >> they are mine because all bill she came along and took them, i had them first. that sounds like a toddler argument. i have two toddlers and this is what they say. it is mine. i had it first here it why isn't it i had it last? >> because of natural light and natural rock walls -- natural rights and natural laws. prof. muoz: she took your fish because i was hungry. hungrys to but i was
first. prof. muoz: someone help him out. >> he is the one who took them from third natural habitat. claire took them from another human and he took them from the lake. prof. muoz: why is one taking just or a rightful claim to property and another not? >> i would say the cuts nature is our domain and -- i would say because nature is our domain and we have a right to this. prof. muoz: but that is the question. why do you have that right? >> you can say because he has the right to them, the question is why does he have the right? >> because he grew up on the distinction between species. because it was just fish in the lake it is different from taking from another person. the difference between what is in the lake and the property of
another. prof. muoz: i don't think we have gotten there yet. who owns the fish in the lake? >> no one. prof. muoz: let's say father jenkins comes along. say no one owns the lake. when aidan fishes, why do they could become his? does anyone think that's right? but why? say that whenk you put in the labor that you retrieval.e then you own the item? prof. muoz: so what does aidan own precisely? he owns his labor. right? therefore he owns the fruits of his labor? why does he own his labor? who said so?
why doesn't claire on his labor? >> because i don't own him. prof. muoz: because they are equal, right? because he has the right of self dominion? ownership of our own labor is one of the key aspects. claire was right to bring up lock. we have a natural right to our own labor. when you go out into the ocean and fish. no one owns the fish. when you mix your labor with something in the commons and appropriated, the fish become yours. they are his fish their agents fish. when claire takes the fish off the grill, they are stealing his labor.
does that make sense? ok. that is wrong whether or not we , campusicipal laws security hereto exit. respectthe law is to others. so what do you do with them? >> if they have already eat my fish? i guess i have to go get more fish? prof. muoz: that's very passive. you're not going to do anything? >> i would probably ask them why they took my fish. and have the exact same debate, i guess? prof. muoz: and their responses because we are smarter and faster and we are going to do it again. you're dumb enough to leave your fish on the grill unprotected. >> i will have a buddy watch the
grill next time. prof. muoz: all right. what are you going to do if they do it again? i guess, i'm not going to be stupid enough to use that same grill and make the same mistakes i made before >> prof. muoz: how are you going to convince them not take your fish again? >> threatening. >> am i supposed to make a threat here? prof. muoz: i don't know, how hungry are you? >> i guess i really like these fish. fishl put something in the so they don't want to eat it. prof. muoz: that was not the answer i was expecting. [laughter] would aidan be wrong in suggesting that he would be not nice if they took the fish again.
what could he legitimately do? there is no campus security. he has the right >> to >> he has the right to physically protect his fish. if claire andat all the other women of lewis and they say, stop us all. and they just use their brutal force to take the fish. what could aidan do? >> nothing. >> i could get the guys from my dorm to come down and back me up. locke and the, wenders following them say have natural executive power to protect our rights. to enforce the natural moral law. so you have these natural rights by nature.
you also have authority to protect your rights. we call that the executive power of the state of nature. what is, i'm going to pivot here, but you will see the connection. why is the drug trade so violent? ok aidan come you have gotten out of fishing and now you are trafficking narcotics, what do you like to sell? >> this is all hypothetical. something good. i don't know. prof. muoz: aidan is trafficking cocaine, all right? ok claire it the fish and now they want a better time. aidan promises them a brick of cocaine but he only gives them a half.
what do you do? >> find him. prof. muoz: you don't go to campus security? why not? >> because it is legal what we are doing. illegal what we are doing. -- whenoz: you can't aidan anza business and soren owns another business. drugs aidan is selling and his business partner does not pay him the right amount, you cannot go to court. how do you protect your rights? that is why the drug trade is always so violent. it is lawless. there is still sort of a natural justice to it all. you are supposed to agree to pay what you agreed upon.
with living alone in the state of nature, that is an authority -- a state there is no authority. people do not follow the natural law. there are too many individuals like soren and claire. they do not respect the rights of others. that is by government is formed. this is the founders social compact theory. there are rights by nature. there is a natural moral law. people don't -- because of human selfishness, because of wickedness, because of miscalculation -- don't respect the rights of others. therefore unique government. -- therefore you need government. make sense? please. argue that ifu people don't follow the natural law because of their inherent selfishness that it is not
natural law? prof. muoz: yeah. there is an argument and this gets back to the first book of the republic there is no natural justice. what is truly natural is to be strong. to dominate. there is no natural justice. it is my nature to dominate others. and nietzsche is the philosopher who made that most powerfully. it is a rejection of the idea of natural law. therefore a rejection of the idea of natural right. does everyone follow that? it is a great question. therefore, ultimately a rejection of the idea of human equality. ok? ok? if all individuals are born naturally free, how is political
authority created? this is to connect where our summary. we are all born free, that means no one can bless, direct, take our labor without our consent, right? that is what natural freedom means. but we need government to protect our rights. we cannot protect our rights alone. .o government is created that's what the founders referred to as the social compact. there are two stages. this is a little technical but it illustrates an important point. there are two stages. the first is a people becomes a -- that you become members of the political community and the founders argument there is, they are following law, that must be by unanimous consent.
because of your natural freedom come you have no obligation to become a part. to give up your natural rights to protect your own rights. you have no obligation to turn that over to a community. it is yours to keep if you want. is, what ifatters you are born into a political community. most of us were born americans. the implication of this right toy is a natural emigrate. this wilson writes about here it upon the age of maturity, if an individual born into a political community wants to leave, they have a natural right to do so. this happens. people do leave.
a country that did not allow you .o leave would be tyrannical think of the berlin wall. in east germany they built a wall. why did they build a wall? to keep citizens in. people could not leave. we said east germany was a tyranny. country, then the argument is you have given your tacit consent. and tacit consent is a valid form of consent in this theory. if you stay and enjoy the protections of the law, you have given your consent to be part of the regime. make is an argument to 21 or 18, youturn should have a declaration. there is something that functions this way, do remember
when you signed up for the selective service? it's a big deal, right? this is when you sign a piece of paper saying, what? you permission to draft you if there's ever a draft again? prof. muoz: yes. i am willing to be drafted. gentlemen, do you all remember this? a bigf you paused, it is deal, right? in a way that functions as consent to be part of the regime. at that moment it is up or out. you will stay or go. if you did not want to sign up, -- you might say i will move somewhere else. it would be wrong, according to the founders theater -- the founders theory for the co untry -- you might to keep you.
i am taking back my natural rights. government must be of consent. consent follows from our natural freedom. i natural equal freedom. that is the first stage. unanimous --be that is everyone agrees by tacit consent. the second stage is when a political community, a people, or a government. the constitutional contact. government form the -- the form of government can be role of one, rule of few, rule of the many. the people are free to set up whatever form of government that best secures their safety and happiness. you don't necessarily, according to the natural lights raw -- the have to forms law
a democracy. an example would be a hereditary monarchy. what is the claim to rule in a hereditary monarchy? you are born. your birth. let's think of jefferson's letter. no man is born with a saddle on his back. no other man booted and spurred. one could make an argument that the people are free to set up a regime that any arm of government that best secures their safety and happiness -- a regime that was a hereditary monarchy would fail that. but you could have a constitutional mark markie, aght question mark -- constitutional monarchy, right? so we agree that we have rights by nature.
remember, founders social compact theory. nature -- we set up a government to protect rights. rights by nature are limited by natural law. we set of government to protect our rights. then, i need to get some more text here. let me explain this document. this is the new hampshire declaration of rights. the reason i asked you to read this is because it articulates eight better more clearly than founders document the compact theory. state -- that is not quite true. 11 of the first 13 states drafted new state constitutions between 1776 and 1784. rhode island and connecticut did not get around to doing it.
we don't really know why they just never got around to doing it. most of the state constitutions were prefaced by something the state called declaration of rights. kind of like preamble of the constitution, or like the thetion of the -- declaration of independence. all men are born equally free and independent. we talked about that already. rightore government of originates from the people it is founded in consent. we talked about that. all men have certain natural essential and inherent rights. that is what it means to be born free and equal. when men enter into the state of society, they surrender up some of their natural resources site in order to protect others. what does that mean to surrender your rights?
willing to give up some of your personal rights in order to gain protection you need from the government. prof. muoz: could be. what else? this is complicated here. ,ou have these rights by nature but they are insecure. they are not necessarily respected so you join a government. the purpose of government is to protect your rights. to protect from soren and claire. why we have government because of the soren's and claire's of the world. rightsgive up all your to the government, can't the government run all of your rights? so what sense do we surrender our rights? this here is complicated. there are two basic ideas.
let me clarify, i'm going to give you might temptation. -- i'm going to give you my interpretation. there is the legislation, the rule -- a person owns the fruit of their labor. that is the legislative component to the right of property. you own your labor, there for you on the fruit of your labor. then there is the executive power to them force the right. -- two and force the right. when someone steals my labor i can go punish them. when the founders say we surrender our rights, most clearly we surrender our executive power to the government. so, aidan's first instinct was when soren took his fish was to call campus security. why call campus security? because they are in effect the government here at notre dame. steals your goods,
you call the police. the police possess the executive authority that we all originally possessed but we turned it over to the government. this is why in criminal cases, it is not soren versus aidan it is soren versus the people of notre dame. because aidan has given up or surrendered his executive authority to protect his rights to the government. let me give you an example. it happened right by my parents house. this guy had custom rims on his truck. rims are not the tires, but the things that tires go on. i don't know. he had custom rims. and they were stolen. off of his truck.
apparently they are very expensive. he is driving around the neighborhood a week later and he ims in the garage. there is no doubt they are his rims. so what do you think he does that night? >> takes his rims back. prof. muoz: if something was stolen, how many of you would go get it? would you? but what is he supposed to do? he is supposed to call the police. he breaks into the house and steals his rims back. guess what happened to him? he gets arrested. for stealing his own rims. again, there is no question that these are his rims. he can documented her it so what should happen to him? he can be charged with raking
and entering, right? he turned over -- he surrendered his executive authority to the community and therefore it is the communities right, our police -- you are supposed to call the police and let them prosecute your rights. would you convict the sky? guy?uld you convict this he is let off this the end of the story. but this is part of what it means to alienate your rights you alienate your executive power. that alienation is not total and incomplete. the example is the right of self-defense. -- thisre walking down would never happen here -- but if you are happening to walk down a street at night and
someone pulled a gun on you. someone pulls a gun on soren but she is packing her own gun. she uses to get her own way. if someone threaten soren in the middle of the night and had a knife can she shoot them? we would say yes. there is no ability to call the police. she really acquires her executive power. that alienation is not complete. the that make sense? this is important in states like .ural communities imagine you live in the middle of nowhere. it would take the police 45 minutes to get there and there is a break in. it's only sensible that people would have the right to the defendant cells. -- to defend themselves. what about the legislative component of the right? do we alienate that? this is a little bit tricky and it is not altogether clear. some of the founders seem to
disagree. but what the founders have in mind is that when you enter the social compact, you give authority to the government to make your rights regular. to regulate your rights. regulate does not mean to control or manipulate it means to make regular. here is my example. you can say there is a natural right to marriage. meaning that you get to choose your spouse. how many of you would let your parents choose your spouse for you? country --gine a this is easy to imagine, right? we would say that is deeply problematic, right? because we believe in natural rights. we believe the right to choose your spouse is part of our natural freedom.
get married, you have to have a marriage license. so there is a natural right to theiage, but we still need system of licensing. -- the government makes the exercise of our right to marriage regular. it specifies that you have to have written consent and two witnesses. the government sets up mechanisms to make the enjoyment of your right easier. that is what makes regular. so too can regularly enjoy them. so the regulation of marriage is consistent with natural rights. when you have a child, you get a birth certificate. that sort of an odd thing, right and you get a stamp of approval from the government.
why do we get a birth certificate? parents have a natural right to make decisions for their children's well-being. why have -- what is the point of a birth certificate? >> to verify your citizenship. prof. muoz: but in terms of the parent-child relationship. >> because the child can enjoy all of the benefits of the parent. prof. muoz: but the birth certificate specifies what? who the parents are. it is a way we regular lies -- rize parents. the right and duty of a parent make our state helps
enjoyment of that right regular through regulation. adequatelyoes not capture that pair do that is what the founders mean. .ake a property right you have a natural right to property. aidan has a natural right to go out to the sea and fish. what happens is aidan is a really good fisherman and he catches all the fish. then there is no fish left for the rest of us. this is a natural law limitation on the acquisition of property is spoilage. take more you cannot from the commons then you can use. through fishing licenses. you can go out and catch 12 fish.
whatever. it is a way of enforcing the natural law limit. to make regular the enjoyment of fish. the proper regulation of rights, of this legislative component is to facilitate the exercise of the right. right tourrender our know what that means is we give our -- we give government power facilitation of the right. also, we alienate our executive power over it. ? the set make sense? questions about that? part of this is also coordination >> you might have the national right to drive on the clearest what matters is that we all drive on the same side. if there was no government, you
could drive wherever it was open . once government is instituted you have to drive on the right-hand side of the road. basic.l seems pretty were the founders understanding that when we are alienating our rights we are and surrendering them to the government body or to society as a whole or to each other? prof. muoz: that is a good question. who are we alienating our rights to? of a politicalrs community and the political community then sets up a government. the government is in charge of protecting our rights. rightstection of encompasses two things. alienate our executive authority to the government and we give government authority to regulate our rights. the state possesses them.
in the founders theory, the -- the most fundamental rights are all natural rights. acquiredalso the rights. like the right to a jury trial is a civil right. there are no juries in nature. it is a right created by government. there are natural rights and nonnatural or acquired rights. copyrights, for example. jefferson and madison talk about this. or patents. it is not clear there is a natural right to a patent. but that is a civil right. it is instituted because it is useful. it's birth innovation. spurs innovation. >> what a patent or copyright be
an extension of property right? prof. muoz: so you have the right to use your own property, but you have the right to keep others from using it? a way to open a beer bottle without touching the bottle. not that that be useful here. [laughter] so you get to use it and i see this contraction, whatever it might be. one.i invent why can you prevent me from using it? that is what patent does. i have to license the technology from you. is that natural? do have a natural right to prevent others from using it? fish you have a natural right to fish. you can both eat the same fish. but we both could use this device. there is a debate whether intellectual property is
actually -- is it a creation of the government? but with most copyrights for personal use, you are -- you don't have to pay anybody for that. but when it comes to making money off of an idea, if someone else is making money off of your idea that is money you are not making. so by right you should be making it. prof. muoz: that is the argan for it. probably go on for this little more. here is the culmination of the lecture. why are we going on about this? we have not talked about religious freedom yet. this is a class about religious freedom. is that some rights are unalienable. of this kind are the rights of conscience. the founders said religious liberty is an inalienable
natural right. our question is, what does it mean for a right to be inalienable? you can't begin to address that question without understanding of the compact theory. does that make sense to you? so property is a natural right but it is and alienable natural right. the founders thought there were other rights that were in alienable natural rights. they say the rights of conscious naturalin alienable right. we'll figure out what that means if we want to understand them. then we have to ask are they correct? is that a good argument? me give you an idea of a different inalienable right.
use this because it might help us think about religious theory. the right of revolution is a natural right. referred to in the declaration of independence. could you ever give up your right of revolution to the government? it's nonsensical, right? individual ora collective right. there are some that we cannot give up. it would destroy the understanding of the right. the right of life is said to be in alienable. what does that mean? i think it might in something like this. you cannot give up to the government discretionary authority to say you can live for this amount of time, but not that amount of time. your right to fish is alienable.
fish, but you10 could never give the government a right to license living. you can live for 10 years or 75 years and then no more. only so many are resources in the world, we cannot support everyone, so everyone only gets five years. we have to ration human life like we ration the fish in the sea. not -- that is totally unreasonable. would you ever give government authority to do that? that is the sense with the right to life is in alienable. in alienable and he is different lienability is different. if you violate the laws of
nature, like soren did when she took aden's fish. feeling was particularly aggressive and then killed aden. she's reading a lot of nietzsche, what's this. we will make friday more exciting. forfeited will have her freedom. it would be right for the ormunity to imprison her even to take her life through the death penalty. the death penalty is not opposed to the right of life. the death penalty is executed on someone when they forfeited their right. but forfeiture of a right is different from alienating a rewrite. the founders are getting -- the founders argued that the right to life is in alienable.
that is part of the social compact theory. class is to figure out what they meant by related being in alienable. ond jefferson and come back tuesday and the first question will be why is religious liberty and in alienable for right. ok. have a good weekend. join us every saturday evening at 8 p.m. and midnight students ine join college classrooms to hear lectures on topics ranging from the american revolution to 9/11. lectures in history are also available as podcasts. visit our website, orpan.org/history/podcast download them from itunes.
>> this sunday on american artifacts, we visit the willard hotel. located two blocks from the white house, it has been a witness to history for 200 years. here is a preview. historic spot. there has been a bar in this corner going back almost 200 years. >> henry clay came to washington in 1808 and along with him came barrel of kentucky straight sour mash whiskey. also known as bourbon. fromarrels he brought urban county were stamped for tax reason. he discovered that washingtonians were drinking their juleps with rob or brandy. he was appalled at this. he decided to show people the proper way to make a southern style meant julep. he used to relish in showing people how to make the southern
style meant julep. we use his original recipe. , at theay traditionally beginning of every new session of congress would bring a barrel of bourbon and would invite, on a bipartisan basis, members of congress from both sides of the aisle to join him in toasting the new legislative session. that tradition continues to this day. just recently we had a group of distillers from bergen county in kentucky come here and with the assistance of the delegation, and that senator legacy that was started back in the early 1800s here at the willard hotel. known asenry clay was the great compromiser. what better way to compromise after a day of legislative battling than to retire to the bar at the willard hotel and
having the julep. >> you can learn more about the willard hotel sunday at x p.m. and 10 p.m. eastern on american artifacts. only on american history tv here on c-span3. ii, theg world war united states military was racially segregated. up next we hear from a member of the geeky airmen for it the first unit of african-american fire pilots. and from a veteran who served with the 442nd combat team comprised of japanese voters. this 35 minute panel discussion was held at the 20th conference. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> i am glad to be here this morning. as i have in the past, i am honored tohe